Using choice experiments to value the environment: Design issues, current experience and future prospects

Environmental and Resource Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 3-4, 1998, Pages 413-428

  Hanley, Nick ^a   Wright, Robert E ^b   Adamowicz, Vic ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Choice experiments; Cost benefit analysis; Environmental valuation; Forest landscapes; Stated preference models

Indexed keywords

COST ACCOUNTING; COST EFFECTIVENESS; FORESTRY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; RANDOM PROCESSES; RIVERS; STATISTICAL METHODS;

CONVERGENT VALIDITY TESTS; ENVIRONMENTAL VALUATION METHOD; LANCASTER VALUE THEORY; RANDOM UTILITY THEORY;

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING;

CONTINGENT VALUATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0032052068     PISSN: 09246460     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/a:1008287310583     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (34)

1. Adamowicz, W. (1995), 'Alternative Valuation Techniques: A Comparison and Movement Towards A Synthesis', in K. Willis and J. Corkindale, eds., Environmental Valuation: New Persectives. Oxford: CAB International.
2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams (1994), 'Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(3), 271-292.
3. Adamowicz, W., J. Swait, P. Boxall, J. Louviere and M. Williams (1997), 'Perceptions Versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32, 65-84.
4. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and J. Swait (1998a), 'Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods', report to NOAA Resource Valuation Brach, Damage Assessment Centre, January.
5. Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1998b), 'Stated Preference Approaches to Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments Versus Contingent Valuation', American Journal of Agricultural Economics, forthcoming.
6. Anderson, D. (1990), The Forestry Industry and the Greenhouse Effect. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
7. Bateman, I., I. Langford, R. K. Turner, K. Willis and G. Garrod (1995), 'Elicitation and Truncation Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies', Ecological Economics 12(2), 161-179.
8. Beggs, S., S. Cardell and J. Hausman (1981), 'Assessing the Potential Demand for Electric Cars', Journal of Econometrics 16, 1-19.
9. Ben-Akiva, M. and S. Lerman (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Bergland, O. (1997), 'Valuation of Landscape Elements Using A Contingent Choice Method', paper to 1997 EAERE conference, Tilburg, June.
11. Bockstael, N., K. McConnell and I. Strand (1991), 'Recreation', in J. Braden and C. Kolstad, eds., Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12. Boxall, P., W. Adamowicz, J. Swait, M. Williams and J. Louviere (1996), 'A Comparison of Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Valuation', Ecological Economics 18, 243-253.
13. Brown, T., P. Champ, R. Bishop and D. McCollum (1996), 'Response Formats and Public Good Donations', Land Economics 72(2), 152-166.
14. Entec (1997), Valuing Landscape Improvements in British Forests. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
15. Environmental Resources Management (1995), The Value of Biodiversity in UK forests. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
16. Foster, V. and S. Mourato (1997), 'Behavioural Consistency, Statistical Specification and Validity in the Contingent Ranking Method: Evidence from a Survey of the Impacts of Pesticide Use in the UK', CSERGE working paper 97-09, University of London.
17. Hanley, N. and R. Ruffell (1993), 'The Contingent Valuation of Forest Characteristics: Two Approaches', Journal of Agricultural Economics 44(2), 218-229.
18. Hanley, N., D. MacMillan, R. E. Wright, C. Bullock, I. Simpson, D. Parsisson and B. Crabtree (1988), "Contingent Valuation versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland', Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1-15.
19. Johnson, F. R., K. Mathews and J. Friesen (1996), 'Using Stated Preference Experiments to Resolve Environmental Mitigation, Restoration and Remediation Conflicts', Workshop on Environmental Policy Targets, Oslo, Norway, September.
20. Lancaster, K. (1966), 'A New Approach to Consumer Theory', Journal of Political Economy 74, 132-157.
21. Louviere, J. (1988a), Analyzing Individual Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences No. 67. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
22. Louviere, J. (1988b), 'Conjoint Analysis Modelling of Stated Preferences', Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 10, 93-119.
23. Louviere, J. (1992), 'Experimental Choice Analysis: Introduction and Overview', Journal of Business Research 24, 89-96.
24. Louviere, J. (1996), 'Relating Stated Preference Measures and Models to Choices', in D. Bjornstad and J. Kahn, eds., The Contingent Valuation of Environmental Resources. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
25. Louviere, J. and G. Woodworth (1983), 'Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice', Journal of Marketing Research 20, 350-367.
26. MacKenzie, J. (1993), 'A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models', American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75, 593-603.
27. Manski, C. (1977), 'The Structure of Random Utility Models', Theory and Decision 8, 229-254.
28. McFadden, D. (1974), 'Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour', in P. Zarembka, ed., Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
29. Ready, R., J. Buzby and D. Hu (1996), 'Differences between Continuous and Discrete Contingent Valuation Estimates', Land Economics 72(3), 397-411.
30. Roe, B., K. Boyle and M. Teisl (1996), 'Using Conjoint Analysis to Derive Estimates of Compensating Variation', Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 145-159.
31. Swait, J. (1994), 'A Structural Equation Model of Latent Segmentation and Product Choice for Cross Sectional, Revealed Preference Data', Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 1(2), 77-89.
32. Swait, J. and W. Adamowicz (1997), 'The Effect of Choice Environment and Task Demands on Consumer Behaviour: Discriminating between Contribution and Confusion', working paper, Dept. of Rural Economy, University of Alberta.
33. Thurstone, L. (1927), 'A Law of Comparative Judgement', Psychological Review 4, 273-286.
34. Willis, K. and J. Benson (1989), 'Recreation Value of Forests', Forestry 62(3), 93-110.